Society: A collective effort or a competition?

[montypython]

My view is that although cooperation and competition are both developmental elements in the formation of social systems, the dynamic varies with the complexity of the structure, as competitive instincts would play a greater role in a low-complexity social organization, but as structures grow more complex cooperation becomes a much more dominant aspect.

[Carinthium]

As for why this happens; well in America we have this ridiculous notion that society is more of a competition and not a collective effort to make life better for everyone, which of course is put forward and supported by the usual suspects.

A quote from the thread that inspired my initial P.M.

Obviously they did, but it certainly would have been disproportionately directed more at outsiders than within the group.

Tribes had little reason to interact in primitive times- most of the time tribesepeople would only be dealing with each other. This meant that the primary incentive for intrigue was internal.

And I clearly point out that the transition was gradual; there was no flipping of the switch moment where one replaced the other. However, there was obviously a point when no codified law existed, then gradually aspects of it were introduced until it all but replaced moral sovereignty; and I say all but replaced because some elements of still in the interaction of small groups like family units.

How do you know that sovereignty was ever purely moral?

People will always want something better, and will be willing to work to get it; contrary to the idea that welfare receipts and the unemployed are just lazy bums who want to sit around and get a handout.

That wasn't what I was saying- I was saying that hard work has to be rewarded somehow or else people will be lazy. A purely cooperative society would not have a reward for hard work.

Yes, I can’t think of anything more stifling than working for Christian Conservative Libertarians who hypocritically push their bullshit dogma down your throat while hiding behind their own authority. Unfortunately, I currently do.

Within modern nation-states in practice there are rival groups (including Christian Conservatives and Libertarians) who each push different dogmas. If not a rational discourse, this at least ensures a greater chance that one of those groups will have correct views of the world- and it gives rational people a chance to learn it and (often) switch groups.

Regarding the first example, yes there are times when this must happen. However, how it is handled is the key. All too often people are under compensated for the disruption this causes in their lives. As for the second, as I’ve already pointed out, the situation is not black and white. There will always be opportunities for individuals to make money. It doesn’t mean that they have the right to crash the economy and ruin peoples’ lives like Wall Street did.

1- Arguably true, yes. However, a more cooperative society would run the risk that people would be forced to 'shoulder the burden', whilst a more competitive one would not build the road in the first place.

2- Up until the point of the cowardly search for bailout, what did the shareholders on Wall Street actually do that was morally wrong?

So we should ask every person after a certain age if they want to be part of society, and perhaps even have two societies, one cooperative and one competitive. As I’ve already pointed out, the problem with that argument and the people who make it is that they want all the benefits of society with minimal cost and responsibility, and often times because they don’t want their pooled resources going to help people they don’t like. Yet they don’t seem to have a problem taking those people’s money for things they favor.

Hypocrites exist, but just because some people are hypocrites doesn't undermine the argument. If people are in practice held to the consequences of living in a cooperative or competitive society, then the problem of hypocrisy doesn't exist.

Also, are you actually saying that people should be forced to contribute their resources to society even if they don't want to and are willing to accept the consequences of such?

See above! They're fucking hypocrites!

Or they think, amongst other possibilities, that intervention in the market is bad for the economy, or that in a cost-benefit analysis of freedom v.s benefit economic intervention is unjustified whilst moral intervention is, or they want the minimum amount of government to avoid anarchy and it's consequences.

Does that mean they should?

Since you hadn't clarified, I thought it was a factual argument rather than a moral argument.

As for what should exist, as I said I favor two rival societies (or more) and a choice to exist between them. Some people are willing to pay the price of scams and robbery to have a shot and making their fortune.

Additionally, a possible compromise society could still outlaw those things whilst remaining mostly competitive.

It’s still fucking slavery! People have little or no options for improving their situation; actually succeeding and getting out of it through hard work and education (if even available to these people) is akin to winning the lottery. Everyone should have a chance at a decent life!

How do you define slavery? Since in a cooperative society people would (presumably) be compelled to work or lose acess to resources, wouldn't that also be slavery? Since people in primitive tribes are forced to hunt for resources or die, isn't that slavery?

People have the choice to choose or switch jobs (in times of sufficently low unemployment), they have the choice to become dole bludgers, they have the choice to become criminals, and they have the choice to advance (to some degree) through hard work.

If people are to have no choice but to work "wage slavery" is not so bad, giving the bad but not intolerable option of the dole. What alternative can you propose to a society where everyone has to work?

Acting on them does! You can have all the sick fantasies you want; you just don’t act them out with other people without their consent. You don’t make another person’s life a living hell because you can!

Not everything bad is twisted- surely the fact that a desire is natural means it isn't?

No it isn’t. Growth for growths sake, especially when it primarily benefits 1% of the population. Not mention that without a social safety net, when things do go pare shaped, it’s everyone else who gets fucked.

Technically Per Capita G.D.P is G.D.P divided by the number of people in the population. A large amount of wealth is produced (and productivity is created), it just all goes to the top.

Bailouts shouldn’t have to happen except in extreme circumstances because a proper social safety net should exist and proper regulation should prevent the kinds of situation that led to the bank bailout from occurring.

I meant in the situation faced with once the crisis occured. There is a good case for better regulation (although as I said people shouldn't have to live in a regulated society).

A genuine competitive society, in other words an unrealistic Randroid fantasy society. As I pointed out above, all of the people who advocate that shit are hypocrites who believe they’re going to be the ones on top and be successful. The reality is that they’ll be living in a shanty town watching their children be dragged off by wild animals in the night. And saying that they’ll sink or swim by their own merits sounds great, as long as they’re not central to the economy or providing essential services like health care where their fuckup can and will destroy the lives of real people.

1- How do you know they all hypocrites?
2- How do you know they all think that? Do you assume all conservatives are unprincipled without empirical evidence to back it up?
3- Not necessarily. They would probably be living in a much more extreme version of the United States at the moment.
4- Again, people would have the choice of where to live. In the competitive society, they would also have the choice of health provider, or even to attempt to self-provide health services.

[Carinthium]

That is the price of religion. You can think of religion as a commensal organism that evolved into a symbiotic organism that then went parasite. It started off as a cognitive accident. A side effect of theory of mind and a hyper-active agency detection system (It is better to have a false positive and detect some sort of living agent behind you when one is not there, than have a false negative and think "it is nothing" when a twig snaps behind you and you get eaten by a leopard). People detected some sort of intelligent cause for natural phenomenon and naturally wanted to appease the nature spirits. Initially this appeasing did not cost much, and the social structures that formed around primitive religions aided humans by giving them rituals that bound the group together and a legitimate means of enforcing social rules. When people did not know how the world worked, and could not, there were no problems. The meme that is religion was symbiotic. It helped them at the same time as it helped itself. Later... well, we know our history.

Other beliefs are dogmatically taught as well- what about the numerous political groups in every nation-state who teach some sort of political doctrine as dogma?

Which is why societies are both competitive and cooperative enterprises.

I was trying to dispute the idea that society is purely cooperative or mostly cooperative, not to demonstrate a competitive nature.

To talk about the moral superiority of something that cannot exist is useless. To say something ought to be implies that something can be. A libertarian paradise will ALWAYS either eat itself, or reform into the cooperative-competitive mosaic that I explained in depth. A cooperative society is the same way, only in reverse. See communism.

1- Why should saying something ought to be imply it can be?
2- It is possible at the very minimum to have a society of extreme competition. In, for example, a United States with no welfare or social safety net laws, no commercial regulation whatsoever, a very low tax rate, and practically no government intervention except for defence spending, practically no cooperation would exist amongst society as a whole.
3- Why are you so certain that it is impossible without having attempted to figure out a way? Unless you've learned psycology such an attitude is unjustified.
4- One contributory measure to such would be if two societies defined themselves one by competitiveness and the other by cooperation. Add the death penalty for any actions contrary to the societal creed, and specialist groups of fanatically indoctrinated and highly cooperative (and psycologically-tested) fanatics in both to spread fear if people didn't act the way they were supposed to, and you would have a start towards implementing such measures.
5- If necessary, such could be achieved by genetic modification to make it easier to adapt to either society.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Other beliefs are dogmatically taught as well- what about the numerous political groups in every nation-state who teach some sort of political doctrine as dogma?

They generally do not teach them as dogma. They are sets of ideas about how the world should work, generally displayed as values, the ethics behind which can be derived from first principles and are subject to actual reasoning and in some cases testing. For example, the Rights Based Ethics that underpins libertarian ideology is based upon first principles such as self-ownership. These first principles may not have any sort of metaphysical basis (The universe does not give a damn about ethics), but they are part of the basic underpinning of our social intelligence. They are evolved, and non-arbitrary. What ethical systems are (unless they are a synthetic effort like Pragmatism), are the attempts by people to derive a coherent framework for moral guidance from them. Political dogmas are derived from these. More Liberal (In the modern sense) ideas are derived from forms of Deontology and Utilitarianism.

The dogmatic statements of religions are completely arbitrary claims. They derive from a completely baseless god-claim. That is the difference.

Of course my statement made no value judgment about dogmas in general. A dogma is not necessarily bad, indeed a dogmatic approach to certain beliefs can save a lot of time and energy by freeing people from actually having to think about something. Most people are not very good at that. What matters is what those value judgments accomplish. A dogma which promotes peace for example is preferable to one that promotes violence.

1- Why should saying something ought to be imply it can be?

If something ought to be, it follows that it should be worked toward. In other words, that you have a chance at actually making the world that is coincide with the world that ought. If this is impossible, it is completely useless to entertain the idea.

2- It is possible at the very minimum to have a society of extreme competition. In, for example, a United States with no welfare or social safety net laws, no commercial regulation whatsoever, a very low tax rate, and practically no government intervention except for defence spending, practically no cooperation would exist amongst society as a whole.

That society would eventually collapse in on its own weight. You saw this in Tsarist Russia. Eventually the mass of people who lose would band together and slaughter those that win. In order to avoid this, a society must transition into a society of less extreme competition. Even if an outright slaughter did not occur, the society would collapse due to crime, starvation, and disease.

3- Why are you so certain that it is impossible without having attempted to figure out a way? Unless you've learned psycology such an attitude is unjustified.

It is justified. I am a behavioral ecologist actually. The evolution of societies in both humans and non-humans is a pretty big thing in that field of study. There is not a social species on the planet that lives under conditions analogous to the ones you describe, and no theoretical model which predicts that one can evolve. In fact, all of the models that do exist show such a society eating itself.

4- One contributory measure to such would be if two societies defined themselves one by competitiveness and the other by cooperation. Add the death penalty for any actions contrary to the societal creed, and specialist groups of fanatically indoctrinated and highly cooperative (and psycologically-tested) fanatics in both to spread fear if people didn't act the way they were supposed to, and you would have a start towards implementing such measures.

By that logic, there would be no crime in early Maoist china. There was. There would have been no economic necessity to liberalize. There has been. The only thing that comes close is North Korea. That wont last for long.

5- If necessary, such could be achieved by genetic modification to make it easier to adapt to either society.

Once you start talking about genetic modification, you change the rules, and thus move the goalposts. Even then, good luck getting people to agree to that.

[Temujin]

As for why this happens; well in America we have this ridiculous notion that society is more of a competition and not a collective effort to make life better for everyone, which of course is put forward and supported by the usual suspects.

A quote from the thread that inspired my initial P.M.

Your Point Being!

Obviously they did, but it certainly would have been disproportionately directed more at outsiders than within the group.

Tribes had little reason to interact in primitive times- most of the time tribesepeople would only be dealing with each other. This meant that the primary incentive for intrigue was internal.

Depends on the time and the place. Population densities varied, some regions were well traveled, and some primitive trading networks have been discovered. Besides, even if they rarely saw another tribe, the fear of outsiders would far outweigh internal divisions.

And I clearly point out that the transition was gradual; there was no flipping of the switch moment where one replaced the other. However, there was obviously a point when no codified law existed, then gradually aspects of it were introduced until it all but replaced moral sovereignty; and I say all but replaced because some elements of still in the interaction of small groups like family units.

How do you know that sovereignty was ever purely moral?

How do you know it wasn't? For codified law to really take effect in a society, certain advances are necessary, namely writing. It's a concept for more advanced societies; go back far enough and wouldn't exist, unless you think Neanderthals had codified laws.

People will always want something better, and will be willing to work to get it; contrary to the idea that welfare receipts and the unemployed are just lazy bums who want to sit around and get a handout.

That wasn't what I was saying- I was saying that hard work has to be rewarded somehow or else people will be lazy. A purely cooperative society would not have a reward for hard work.

Sure it would, after basic necessitates are provided, most people will still want more things and a better lifestyle, especially when they see other people getting these things through hard work. They'll be motivated to work hard for them, and hence come to appreciate it.

You seem to think that a collaborative society would give everyone and equal share of everything regardless. Essential services and a reasonably comfortable life (i.e., not living under a bridge) is all that is required. Even the laziest motherfuckers will grudgingly work to have the extra things they want.

Yes, I can’t think of anything more stifling than working for Christian Conservative Libertarians who hypocritically push their bullshit dogma down your throat while hiding behind their own authority. Unfortunately, I currently do.

Within modern nation-states in practice there are rival groups (including Christian Conservatives and Libertarians) who each push different dogmas. If not a rational discourse, this at least ensures a greater chance that one of those groups will have correct views of the world- and it gives rational people a chance to learn it and (often) switch groups.

There's nothing rational about Christians, Conservatives or Libertarians. And some people push dogma and ideologies and some simply provide truth and facts. Sadly most people are to stupid to truly appreciate the difference most of the time, hence the fucked up political environment in America today.

Regarding the first example, yes there are times when this must happen. However, how it is handled is the key. All too often people are under compensated for the disruption this causes in their lives. As for the second, as I’ve already pointed out, the situation is not black and white. There will always be opportunities for individuals to make money. It doesn’t mean that they have the right to crash the economy and ruin peoples’ lives like Wall Street did.

1- Arguably true, yes. However, a more cooperative society would run the risk that people would be forced to 'shoulder the burden', whilst a more competitive one would not build the road in the first place.
2- Up until the point of the cowardly search for bailout, what did the shareholders on Wall Street actually do that was morally wrong?

1- That's funny, cause America is quite a competitive society and I've consistently heard stories over the years of people being forced to sell their homes for far less than they are worth because somebody wanted the land.
2 - Because what led to this has been going on for years, not to mention they spent godawful amounts of money lobbying (i.e., bribing) officials to eliminate regulations that would have prevented a lot of this crap.

So we should ask every person after a certain age if they want to be part of society, and perhaps even have two societies, one cooperative and one competitive. As I’ve already pointed out, the problem with that argument and the people who make it is that they want all the benefits of society with minimal cost and responsibility, and often times because they don’t want their pooled resources going to help people they don’t like. Yet they don’t seem to have a problem taking those people’s money for things they favor.

Hypocrites exist, but just because some people are hypocrites doesn't undermine the argument. If people are in practice held to the consequences of living in a cooperative or competitive society, then the problem of hypocrisy doesn't exist.

Also, are you actually saying that people should be forced to contribute their resources to society even if they don't want to and are willing to accept the consequences of such?

Actually it does undermine the argument, because it's easy for these fuckers to pontificate about their Utopian society while sitting comfortably at home in front of their computers when they're leaching off of the society they are currently in, not to mention that practically all of these assholes have never tasted desperate, and don't realize just how much they can lose.

As contributing their resources, that is what society is about. If they really want to go off and live in the woods as a hermit or found their own colony, they're perfectly welcome to try. However, it won't be as easy as a lot of them think.

See above! They're fucking hypocrites!

Or they think, amongst other possibilities, that intervention in the market is bad for the economy, or that in a cost-benefit analysis of freedom v.s benefit economic intervention is unjustified whilst moral intervention is, or they want the minimum amount of government to avoid anarchy and it's consequences.

No, they're hypocrites, because they're inconsistent and contradictory in the application of their beliefs.

Does that mean they should?

Since you hadn't clarified, I thought it was a factual argument rather than a moral argument.
As for what should exist, as I said I favor two rival societies (or more) and a choice to exist between them. Some people are willing to pay the price of scams and robbery to have a shot and making their fortune.

Most ludicrous shit I've ever heard!

Additionally, a possible compromise society could still outlaw those things whilst remaining mostly competitive.

But of course I already clarified that competition in some forms will exist, and that health competition certainly should exist.

It’s still fucking slavery! People have little or no options for improving their situation; actually succeeding and getting out of it through hard work and education (if even available to these people) is akin to winning the lottery. Everyone should have a chance at a decent life!

How do you define slavery? Since in a cooperative society people would (presumably) be compelled to work or lose access to resources, wouldn't that also be slavery? Since people in primitive tribes are forced to hunt for resources or die, isn't that slavery?

No, in a progressive cooperative society we wouldn't just let people stave or be homeless, that's the point. Conservatives do that! As for primitive peoples, they're living at a subsistence level, they don't have the luxury of your so-called high minded ideals

People have the choice to choose or switch jobs (in times of sufficently low unemployment), they have the choice to become dole bludgers, they have the choice to become criminals, and they have the choice to advance (to some degree) through hard work.

If people are to have no choice but to work "wage slavery" is not so bad, giving the bad but not intolerable option of the dole. What alternative can you propose to a society where everyone has to work?

In a decent society people wouldn't have to be wage slaves, and you clearly have no idea what is like to live like that your whole life. If you did you wouldn't be so dismissive of it.

Acting on them does! You can have all the sick fantasies you want; you just don’t act them out with other people without their consent. You don’t make another person’s life a living hell because you can!

Not everything bad is twisted- surely the fact that a desire is natural means it isn't?

Obviously your the kind of person who would act like that.

No it isn’t. Growth for growths sake, especially when it primarily benefits 1% of the population. Not mention that without a social safety net, when things do go pare shaped, it’s everyone else who gets fucked.

Technically Per Capita G.D.P is G.D.P divided by the number of people in the population. A large amount of wealth is produced (and productivity is created), it just all goes to the top.
It goes disproportionately to those who don't deserve it and/or need it, while being kept from those who are deserving and in need.

A genuine competitive society, in other words an unrealistic Randroid fantasy society. As I pointed out above, all of the people who advocate that shit are hypocrites who believe they’re going to be the ones on top and be successful. The reality is that they’ll be living in a shanty town watching their children be dragged off by wild animals in the night. And saying that they’ll sink or swim by their own merits sounds great, as long as they’re not central to the economy or providing essential services like health care where their fuckup can and will destroy the lives of real people.

1- How do you know they all hypocrites?
2- How do you know they all think that? Do you assume all conservatives are unprincipled without empirical evidence to back it up?
3- Not necessarily. They would probably be living in a much more extreme version of the United States at the moment.
4- Again, people would have the choice of where to live. In the competitive society, they would also have the choice of health provider, or even to attempt to self-provide health services.

1 - See above!
2 - Because they all sound like the same hypocritical broken record!
3 - No, they would be eaten by a bear!
4 - And people wouldn't have a choice on where to live in a cooperative one? As for health providers, we can see how well that works in Amerikkka.

[Carinthium]

They generally do not teach them as dogma. They are sets of ideas about how the world should work, generally displayed as values, the ethics behind which can be derived from first principles and are subject to actual reasoning and in some cases testing. For example, the Rights Based Ethics that underpins libertarian ideology is based upon first principles such as self-ownership. These first principles may not have any sort of metaphysical basis (The universe does not give a damn about ethics), but they are part of the basic underpinning of our social intelligence. They are evolved, and non-arbitrary. What ethical systems are (unless they are a synthetic effort like Pragmatism), are the attempts by people to derive a coherent framework for moral guidance from them. Political dogmas are derived from these. More Liberal (In the modern sense) ideas are derived from forms of Deontology and Utilitarianism.

The dogmatic statements of religions are completely arbitrary claims. They derive from a completely baseless god-claim. That is the difference.

How can you demonstrate that there is any rational reason to be moral at all?

If something ought to be, it follows that it should be worked toward. In other words, that you have a chance at actually making the world that is coincide with the world that ought. If this is impossible, it is completely useless to entertain the idea.

How can you demonstrate that if something ought to be it should be worked toward? What about the counter-posistion that if something ought to be then it would be a good thing if it were so?

That society would eventually collapse in on its own weight. You saw this in Tsarist Russia. Eventually the mass of people who lose would band together and slaughter those that win. In order to avoid this, a society must transition into a society of less extreme competition. Even if an outright slaughter did not occur, the society would collapse due to crime, starvation, and disease.

Having studied Tsarist Russia in detail in school, I will point out that it's collapse was nowhere near inevitable. If World War I had not happened, it is unlikely a redistributionist government would have come to power. Feudal societies in general are a clear demonstration that gross inequality can exist.

It is justified. I am a behavioral ecologist actually. The evolution of societies in both humans and non-humans is a pretty big thing in that field of study. There is not a social species on the planet that lives under conditions analogous to the ones you describe, and no theoretical model which predicts that one can evolve. In fact, all of the models that do exist show such a society eating itself.

If species can exist with no cooperation whatsoever, then they can exist in a state of quasi-cooperation.

By that logic, there would be no crime in early Maoist china. There was. There would have been no economic necessity to liberalize. There has been. The only thing that comes close is North Korea. That wont last for long.

I said that it would help, not that it would ensure it. Anyway, a purely competitive society would be more likely to suceed then a purely cooperative society as it would be more compatible with human instincts.

Once you start talking about genetic modification, you change the rules, and thus move the goalposts. Even then, good luck getting people to agree to that.

When they realise the alternative will be serious limits on freedom of choice, it will be a lot easier.

[Carinthium]

Your Point Being!

You claimed society was by nature cooperative rather than competitive.

Depends on the time and the place. Population densities varied, some regions were well traveled, and some primitive trading networks have been discovered. Besides, even if they rarely saw another tribe, the fear of outsiders would far outweigh internal divisions.

1- I'm basing my assumptions on more primitive times, as those would be the times most formative for human instincts.
2- Only if they actually interacted with outsiders. Most of the time, they wouldn't.

How do you know it wasn't? For codified law to really take effect in a society, certain advances are necessary, namely writing. It's a concept for more advanced societies; go back far enough and wouldn't exist, unless you think Neanderthals had codified laws.

As I understand it, this is a partial Argument from Ignorance. I was never arguing in favor of written laws in tribal societies, but laws memorised by members of the tribe. Even searching Google will find information on tribal law.

Sure it would, after basic necessitates are provided, most people will still want more things and a better lifestyle, especially when they see other people getting these things through hard work. They'll be motivated to work hard for them, and hence come to appreciate it.

You seem to think that a collaborative society would give everyone and equal share of everything regardless. Essential services and a reasonably comfortable life (i.e., not living under a bridge) is all that is required. Even the laziest motherfuckers will grudgingly work to have the extra things they want.

A purely collaborative society would require no unequal rewards- if people could be rewarded unequally for sucess of any sort, that would be at least partially competitive. If you are advocating a non-purely cooperative society, that is a different matter.

There's nothing rational about Christians, Conservatives or Libertarians.

Saying a group of humans are purely irrational is clearly wrong- with no capacity for rationality whatsoever, it is arguable whether they would be Homo Sapiens. If you mean that they are very irrational, evidence (relative to the rest of society) please?

And some people push dogma and ideologies and some simply provide truth and facts. Sadly most people are to stupid to truly appreciate the difference most of the time, hence the fucked up political environment in America today.

Aren't you oversimplfying? Some people conclude the correct thing for irrational reasons, or make wrong but non-deluded deductions from the evidence (complete or not).

1- That's funny, cause America is quite a competitive society and I've consistently heard stories over the years of people being forced to sell their homes for far less than they are worth because somebody wanted the land.

America is not a purely competitive society. A purely competitive society would not have income tax, for a start. To a significant extent, it fits would I will deem an "elitist society"- a society in which the elites profit at the expense of the masses. (Not purely of course, but to some degree)

2 - Because what led to this has been going on for years, not to mention they spent godawful amounts of money lobbying (i.e., bribing) officials to eliminate regulations that would have prevented a lot of this crap.

Lobbying is not the same as bribing- if it simply involves constant talking to and persuading of officials, there is no bribery involved (if you know of things other then that, that is additional evidence). As for what you refer to as "what led to this", shouldn't you provide details?

Actually it does undermine the argument, because it's easy for these fuckers to pontificate about their Utopian society while sitting comfortably at home in front of their computers when they're leaching off of the society they are currently in, not to mention that practically all of these assholes have never tasted desperate, and don't realize just how much they can lose.

Most of that is rhethoric repeating the same claim. It is an ad hominem argument.

As contributing their resources, that is what society is about.

You claim- this has not been demonstrated. Competition is a part of natural society.

The problem (my argument is) is that societies are too intermixed of people with different preferences. If seperate societies exist accomodating political extremes and moderates, a much larger percentage of the world's population could live in a society of the nature they want.

No, they're hypocrites, because they're inconsistent and contradictory in the application of their beliefs.

You haven't adressed my point- without empirical evidence, how can you be so sure of your claim?

Most ludicrous shit I've ever heard!

Given people exist with extreme delusions, why is it so unlikely that people exist with radically different priorities from the rest of society? Some already do- cults.

Additionally, some people are strong enough to defend themselves, believe they would steal/scam more then they were stolen/scammed from, could afford to hire security, or would live in such a society on principle.

No, in a progressive cooperative society we wouldn't just let people stave or be homeless, that's the point. Conservatives do that!

We seem to have different definitions of a cooperative society- what you are arguing for is not a purely cooperative society but a society similiar to the modern world plus a "safety net".

Even most conservatives in practice (although I personally have my doubts about it) support some degree of redistribution- no Republican candidate in modern times has ever campaigned for the repeal of the income tax.

As for primitive peoples, they're living at a subsistence level, they don't have the luxury of your so-called high minded ideals

1- Justified slavery yes, but still slavery.
2- The system you appear to be advocating seems to still be one of pressuring people into work, just with lighter disincentives for not working.

In a decent society people wouldn't have to be wage slaves, and you clearly have no idea what is like to live like that your whole life. If you did you wouldn't be so dismissive of it.

1- To be consistent, you would have to argue that a primitive tribe's lifestyle is not decent.
2- I don't, but that's an ad hominem argument.
3- If people are forced to work it hardly matters if they are wage slaves or not.

Obviously your the kind of person who would act like that.

Ad Hominem. My basic argument was that social status is a human instinct, and therefore is natural. It may be a bad thing, but it does not count as "twisted".

It goes disproportionately to those who don't deserve it and/or need it, while being kept from those who are deserving and in need.

1- You should at least concede that the creation of wealth is not in itself bad, just the fact that some are poor.
2- Don't need is correct, but they often do deserve it. If a person of ability contributes to the economy, don't they deserve additional money?

1 - See above!

You have given no demonstration of the facts claimed. It is additionally a broad claim given the sheer number of conservatives.

2 - Because they all sound like the same hypocritical broken record!

Couldn't it be that they simply share rhetoric and arguments to help win the (in a very, very broad sense) "culture wars"? Some of them would act on the rhetoric if put to the test, and some would not. You have not given any evidence that they sound like hypocrites when they talk.

3 - No, they would be eaten by a bear!

You think that all the Americans would suddenly lose their guns and knives just because society got competitive?

4 - And people wouldn't have a choice on where to live in a cooperative one?

In a purely cooperative society one couldn't buy a house, so it would could involve negotiations and "house-trading" (although even that would involve competition of a sort, to trade for the best house).

As for health providers, we can see how well that works in Amerikkka.

Admittedly only some of the population can afford good health care (and only some would in a purely competitive society), however this would be a tradeoff with the benefit of freedom of choice.

[Temujin]

Your Point Being!

You claimed society was by nature cooperative rather than competitive.

What are you a sock puppet of AlphaWolf's. I already addressed the fact that I said "more of a competition", and clarified that regarding the OP. If you can't read and/or are going to continue to whine about your misreading of my post then go fuck off!

Sure it would, after basic necessitates are provided, most people will still want more things and a better lifestyle, especially when they see other people getting these things through hard work. They'll be motivated to work hard for them, and hence come to appreciate it.
You seem to think that a collaborative society would give everyone and equal share of everything regardless. Essential services and a reasonably comfortable life (i.e., not living under a bridge) is all that is required. Even the laziest motherfuckers will grudgingly work to have the extra things they want.

A purely collaborative society would require no unequal rewards- if people could be rewarded unequally for sucess of any sort, that would be at least partially competitive. If you are advocating a non-purely cooperative society, that is a different matter.

It's already been made quite clear that we're not dealing with hypothetical purely cooperative or competitive societies; at least the rest of us aren't.

There's nothing rational about Christians, Conservatives or Libertarians.

Saying a group of humans are purely irrational is clearly wrong- with no capacity for rationality whatsoever, it is arguable whether they would be Homo Sapiens. If you mean that they are very irrational, evidence (relative to the rest of society) please?

Their beliefs are irrational, hence they are irrational (though I never said anything about purely) If you've read any of the site or the board's history than you'll see that the ideologies for all three have consistently been ripped to shreds. I don't have the time right now to deconstruct all of their arguments just for this thread.

And some people push dogma and ideologies and some simply provide truth and facts. Sadly most people are to stupid to truly appreciate the difference most of the time, hence the fucked up political environment in America today.

Aren't you oversimplfying? Some people conclude the correct thing for irrational reasons, or make wrong but non-deluded deductions from the evidence (complete or not).
No, most people are stupid and believe stupid things. Much like common sense, the ability to truly think critically is so rare its practically a super power. Though a shitty education system certainly doesn't help.

1- That's funny, cause America is quite a competitive society and I've consistently heard stories over the years of people being forced to sell their homes for far less than they are worth because somebody wanted the land.

America is not a purely competitive society. A purely competitive society would not have income tax, for a start. To a significant extent, it fits would I will deem an "elitist society"- a society in which the elites profit at the expense of the masses. (Not purely of course, but to some degree)

Again trying to claim that I'm dealing in absolutes, when it is clearly you who is doing so. And your "elitist society" already exists, probably just not to the exploitative degree that you and your kind would like.

2 - Because what led to this has been going on for years, not to mention they spent godawful amounts of money lobbying (i.e., bribing) officials to eliminate regulations that would have prevented a lot of this crap.

Lobbying is not the same as bribing- if it simply involves constant talking to and persuading of officials, there is no bribery involved (if you know of things other then that, that is additional evidence). As for what you refer to as "what led to this", shouldn't you provide details?

Don't act naive, it's well known that large corporations have spent vast sums on lobbying; and there have been many instances of less than ethical practices associated with corporate lobbying. This is why lobbying reform has been a constant issue. I pointed out in another thread how the bank spent millions in the 1980s to repeal financial regulations.

Actually it does undermine the argument, because it's easy for these fuckers to pontificate about their Utopian society while sitting comfortably at home in front of their computers when they're leaching off of the society they are currently in, not to mention that practically all of these assholes have never tasted desperate, and don't realize just how much they can lose.

Most of that is rhethoric repeating the same claim. It is an ad hominem argument.

As contributing their resources, that is what society is about.

You claim- this has not been demonstrated. Competition is a part of natural society.

The problem (my argument is) is that societies are too intermixed of people with different preferences. If seperate societies exist accomodating political extremes and moderates, a much larger percentage of the world's population could live in a society of the nature they want.

No, they're hypocrites, because they're inconsistent and contradictory in the application of their beliefs.

You haven't adressed my point- without empirical evidence, how can you be so sure of your claim?

And you keep misrepresenting my position and trying to make this about hypothetical purely cooperative / competitive societies while I'm clearly dealing with the real world. If libertarianism was so fucking great, why in the entire history of civilization has it never arisen, survived and prospered like you all think it will. The closest examples are on a small scale and on a short time frame, existing within the confines of an already established stable nation. Of course we have another example of how it will really turn out: Somalia! Why don't you go move there!

Most ludicrous shit I've ever heard!

Given people exist with extreme delusions, why is it so unlikely that people exist with radically different priorities from the rest of society? Some already do- cults.

Cults, like Christianity! And the Cult of Saint Ayn Rand of the Holy Invisible Hand!

Additionally, some people are strong enough to defend themselves, believe they would steal/scam more then they were stolen/scammed from, could afford to hire security, or would live in such a society on principle.

Yeah, and they're delusion and/or sociopathic thugs!

No, in a progressive cooperative society we wouldn't just let people stave or be homeless, that's the point. Conservatives do that!

We seem to have different definitions of a cooperative society- what you are arguing for is not a purely cooperative society but a society similiar to the modern world plus a "safety net".

By George, I think you finally got it!

Even most conservatives in practice (although I personally have my doubts about it) support some degree of redistribution- no Republican candidate in modern times has ever campaigned for the repeal of the income tax.

Because while the electorate is clearly stupid, they're not that stupid; and they are also quite greedy and selfish. Despite a lot of the rhetoric they support, once the people are given something like Medicare, they don't want to give it up. Which makes it so ironic and amusing to see them screaming in the same breath that they don't want socialized medicine, but "keep your damn hands off my Medicare!"

2- The system you appear to be advocating seems to still be one of pressuring people into work, just with lighter disincentives for not working.

I don't think they would be pressured into doing anything. Whether it's a greedy desire for more, a notion of contributing ones fair share for ones fair reward, or a high minded desire to accomplish something with their lives, most people will be willing to do some kind of work. Countries with far greater social safety nets than America exist, yet don't have a plethora of welfare bums mooching off the state.

In a decent society people wouldn't have to be wage slaves, and you clearly have no idea what is like to live like that your whole life. If you did you wouldn't be so dismissive of it.

1- To be consistent, you would have to argue that a primitive tribe's lifestyle is not decent.
2- I don't, but that's an ad hominem argument.
3- If people are forced to work it hardly matters if they are wage slaves or not.

1 - Primitive people who know no better might agree, but from the standpoint of modern health and sanitation the lives of people in those kinds of conditions have generally been nasty, brutish and short.
3 - Even if you are forcing a person to work, you can at least give them an opportunity to improve themselves, whether its better pay, education or reimbursement for such, or training and/or experience. Anything that lets them have a fucking chance at improving their lot in life.

Obviously your the kind of person who would act like that.

Ad Hominem. My basic argument was that social status is a human instinct, and therefore is natural. It may be a bad thing, but it does not count as "twisted".

With that kind of reasoning sociopathy along with other mental disorders could easily be considered natural; yet I still consider these people sick and twisted. If you want to consider that an extreme way of describing "bad", than there you go.

It goes disproportionately to those who don't deserve it and/or need it, while being kept from those who are deserving and in need.

1- You should at least concede that the creation of wealth is not in itself bad, just the fact that some are poor.
2- Don't need is correct, but they often do deserve it. If a person of ability contributes to the economy, don't they deserve additional money?

I never said I have a problem with the creation of wealth, in fact I'm all for it. It's the lack of equitable redistribution that is wrong. Hell, the richer the society is, the more wealth to be spread around. I don't even have a problem with some people being reasonably rich. The problem is these people not only often have far more than they need, but keep trying to pervert and milk the system to get more at the expense of everyone else, particularly those with little or nothing.

1 - See above!

You have given no demonstration of the facts claimed. It is additionally a broad claim given the sheer number of conservatives.

2 - Because they all sound like the same hypocritical broken record!

Couldn't it be that they simply share rhetoric and arguments to help win the (in a very, very broad sense) "culture wars"? Some of them would act on the rhetoric if put to the test, and some would not. You have not given any evidence that they sound like hypocrites when they talk.

Maybe when I see them stop playing the political game and start actually taking a stance and stick by it; and not do what so many Republican politicians have done (especially lately) and throw out ideas for reform and then turn around and oppose those same ideas when Democrats accept them and try to incorporate them into legislation.

3 - No, they would be eaten by a bear!

You think that all the Americans would suddenly lose their guns and knives just because society got competitive?

No, I think they have inflated opinions of themselves and their abilities! the majority of them talk tough, few actually can back up their words.

4 - And people wouldn't have a choice on where to live in a cooperative one?

In a purely cooperative society one couldn't buy a house, so it would could involve negotiations and "house-trading" (although even that would involve competition of a sort, to trade for the best house).

Again with the "Pure" crap!

As for health providers, we can see how well that works in Amerikkka.

Admittedly only some of the population can afford good health care (and only some would in a purely competitive society), however this would be a tradeoff with the benefit of freedom of choice.

Well then I'll take my Commie Cooperative Utopia as I believe essential services should be available for all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How can you demonstrate that there is any rational reason to be moral at all?

Is your reading comprehension that of a five year old child? I said no such thing. Many human behaviors involving morality are not rational. For example, it is irrational to go to great lengths and great cost to punish someone who has wronged you. The damage is done, why harm yourself further for no gain? Yet humans, chimps and several other organisms will do this both in the lab and in The Nature. Morality is not rational at all. It is adaptive. If you live in a social group, you want to increase the risk posed to social cheaters as much as you can, otherwise they will reduce your fitness in the long term. No one sits around and thinks about their fitness and tries to maximize it-morality is mediated through emotions like empathy, spite, vengefulness, a desire for some fleeting thing called fairness.

You will engage in moral behavior to a greater or lesser degree (depending on risk-benefit trade-offs and your genetic makeup) whether you think it is rational or not, because unless you are a sociopath and in some way broken, it is hard-wired into your brain.

How can you demonstrate that if something ought to be it should be worked toward? What about the counter-posistion that if something ought to be then it would be a good thing if it were so?

You are now just being sophistic. The whole point of ethical philosophy is to define and strive toward The Good. If it were a good thing for something to be so, then it becomes obligatory or at least desirable by definition to attempt to make such a state so. The only caveat is if doing so would bring about another undesirable state. For example, under Kant's form of deontology, it is unethical to lie. It is always unethical to lie in fact, because under his system by lying you make another person a means to your end and not an end unto themselves. As a result, it would be nice if Nazis never came to your door and asked about the jews in your basement, but you are obligated not to lie to them. Thus the jews will die. This is one of the reasons why Deontology does not work as Kant laid it out, but I digress.

If you cant grasp that, I suggest you go and do a bit more reading.

Having studied Tsarist Russia in detail in school, I will point out that it's collapse was nowhere near inevitable. If World War I had not happened, it is unlikely a redistributionist government would have come to power. Feudal societies in general are a clear demonstration that gross inequality can exist.

Maybe not, but it would have forced some kind of reform. Putting down peasant revolts is costly business. In the case of the French Revolution, the aristocrats died by the hundred.

In a feudal society, prior to the industrial revolution, the quality of life between the rich and poor were not entirely different. They had similar chances of dying in childhood, similar life expectancies etc. The only difference that I can really think of is that the nobility had better clothes. The relationship between peasants and feudal lords was largely contractual. The peasant owed his lord military service and a portion of the harvest, and in exchange they received protection and the land upon which to grow their crops to feed their families.

Once you get to the industrial revolution things start to change, because quality of life was actually higher if you were wealthier, and the industrial revolution required horrifically exploiting your workers in a way not possible in a feudal society.

If species can exist with no cooperation whatsoever, then they can exist in a state of quasi-cooperation.

Did you read the above posts I have been making? Did they sink into your thick skull? Or are you just trolling instead of being an idiot?

Any society requires some form of altruism, unless said group is nothing but an aggregation. Wasps getting together to communally raise offspring require that females take care of unrelated brood etc. For that to evolve, the problem of social cheating needs to be solved- individuals taking advantage of the cooperation of others, without cooperating themselves. Why? Their fitness is higher. They gain the benefit of cooperation without experiencing the cost. Without mechanisms to reduce the fitness of those individuals, sociality cannot evolve. These have evolved in us. It is hard-wired into our brains. Cant stop it.

Now, there are transitional stages between being solitary and being eusocial, but those all solve the same problem. Aggregations dont have any actual altruism, but African Bullfrogs do communal offspring care. They solve the problem by having no kin recognition, so the frog that stays behind to guard the tadpoles cannot preferentially treat his own offspring. If the tadpoles, die, so do his.

However, a species cannot do both. They cannot be solitary, and able to live in a state of quasi-cooperation. There is not a species on the planet that does this.

I said that it would help, not that it would ensure it. Anyway, a purely competitive society would be more likely to suceed then a purely cooperative society as it would be more compatible with human instincts.

You really must be illiterate. Both cooperation and competition are hard-wired into our brains. Neither is more likely to succeed than the other. They will both fail. I just spent paragraph after paragraph explaining how cooperation is maintained. The emotions we feel that mediate our social living are instinctual, not rational. They evolved, they were not originally cogitated. No one sat down and made a rational decision to cooperate. We have been social since our ape ancestors climbed down from the trees.

When they realise the alternative will be serious limits on freedom of choice, it will be a lot easier.

"Wait, you have to kill what makes me human in order to make your libertopia work?" That makes no fucking sense.

[Channel72]

In a feudal society, prior to the industrial revolution, the quality of life between the rich and poor were not entirely different. They had similar chances of dying in childhood, similar life expectancies etc. The only difference that I can really think of is that the nobility had better clothes.

The nobility had a lot more than better clothes. They also had manpower on hand in the form of servants which provided for many of their wants and needs, as well as access to luxury items which made their lives more comfortable. And of course, feudal aristocrats were more likely to have access to an education of some form. Industrialization certainly exacerbated the lifestyle differences between classes, but these differences existed well before industrialization.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In a feudal society, prior to the industrial revolution, the quality of life between the rich and poor were not entirely different. They had similar chances of dying in childhood, similar life expectancies etc. The only difference that I can really think of is that the nobility had better clothes.

The nobility had a lot more than better clothes. They also had manpower on hand in the form of servants which provided for many of their wants and needs, as well as access to luxury items which made their lives more comfortable. And of course, feudal aristocrats were more likely to have access to an education of some form. Industrialization certainly exacerbated the lifestyle differences between classes, but these differences existed well before industrialization.

They had servants, but those servants were not often body servants. They were bondsman that performed vital household chores around a manor. A steward for the day to day running, stableboys etc. However, at the end of the day, the inequalities were not so great as to do things like increase life expectancy, or even really provide a buffer from starvation in bad harvest years. Everyone had the same chance of dying from smallpox, or catching the plague. After the plague, society remained feudal but the non-nobility gained significantly more power due to their smaller numbers and significantly higher individual worth.

[Carinthium]

What are you a sock puppet of AlphaWolf's. I already addressed the fact that I said "more of a competition", and clarified that regarding the OP. If you can't read and/or are going to continue to whine about your misreading of my post then go fuck off!

I'm just pointing out that your original statement was incorrect. You have clarified it, but that doesn't change the fact your original statement was incorrect.

It's already been made quite clear that we're not dealing with hypothetical purely cooperative or competitive societies; at least the rest of us aren't.

You shouldn't claim a thread is about whether society should be collective or cooperative if you don't mean collective or cooperative. If this is about whether society should be socialist or capitalist you should have had a different thread title.

Their beliefs are irrational, hence they are irrational (though I never said anything about purely) If you've read any of the site or the board's history than you'll see that the ideologies for all three have consistently been ripped to shreds. I don't have the time right now to deconstruct all of their arguments just for this thread.

Have you ever been to Christian, Conservative, or Libertarian websites to see their counter-arguments? Have you engaged in debates against them? Can you not even copy-paste the sections you consider relevant?

No, most people are stupid and believe stupid things. Much like common sense, the ability to truly think critically is so rare its practically a super power. Though a shitty education system certainly doesn't help.

Most people, maybe. I am referring to some people- your original statement was over-generalising.

Again trying to claim that I'm dealing in absolutes, when it is clearly you who is doing so. And your "elitist society" already exists, probably just not to the exploitative degree that you and your kind would like.

I am advocating a competitive society, not an elitist society- there is a difference. A competitive society does not allow the elites to, for example, make a regressive tax system or exploit private eminent domain.

As for the point about dealing in absolutes, see earlier.

Don't act naive, it's well known that large corporations have spent vast sums on lobbying; and there have been many instances of less than ethical practices associated with corporate lobbying. This is why lobbying reform has been a constant issue. I pointed out in another thread how the bank spent millions in the 1980s to repeal financial regulations.

1- I live in Australia.
2- I don't keep up much with the news.

Therefore, since I don't know about these practices are you talking about, care to list them with sources?

Most of that is rhethoric repeating the same claim. It is an ad hominem argument.

You have not adressed this point.

You claim- this has not been demonstrated. Competition is a part of natural society.

The problem (my argument is) is that societies are too intermixed of people with different preferences. If seperate societies exist accomodating political extremes and moderates, a much larger percentage of the world's population could live in a society of the nature they want.

You have not adressed this point.

If libertarianism was so fucking great, why in the entire history of civilization has it never arisen, survived and prospered like you all think it will.

1- For libertarianism to exist at all, Western cultural ideas about freedom were an essential basis for it. This considerably narrowed the timespan in which it could evolve.
2- The elites of a society generally do not want libertarianism, as it provides insecurity they are not willing to risk.
3- The masses of a society generally do not want libertarianism (nowadays) due to lost benefits.

Anyway, I am talking about what should be- once an ideal has been established, it can be worked towards. A libertarian society would be less secure, but theoretical models have been created to make it more likely. (Since you haven't cited sources, I won't bother to explain what various anarcho-capitalists have figured out)

The closest examples are on a small scale and on a short time frame, existing within the confines of an already established stable nation.

Which examples are you referring to?

Of course we have another example of how it will really turn out: Somalia! Why don't you go move there!

1- The collapse of Somalia was originally due to clan-based warfare and Ethopian funding.
2- De facto governments, at least in the form of clans, have emerged anyway.
3- Given tribal governments, they are nowhere near a competitive society.

Cults, like Christianity! And the Cult of Saint Ayn Rand of the Holy Invisible Hand!

Ad Hominem argument.

Yeah, and they're delusion and/or sociopathic thugs!

Why must somebody be sociopathic to be capable of defending themselves?

By George, I think you finally got it!

You're contradicting your own thread title.

Because while the electorate is clearly stupid, they're not that stupid; and they are also quite greedy and selfish. Despite a lot of the rhetoric they support, once the people are given something like Medicare, they don't want to give it up. Which makes it so ironic and amusing to see them screaming in the same breath that they don't want socialized medicine, but "keep your damn hands off my Medicare!"

Have you viewed conservative websites? Not that many even believe in eliminating the income tax.

I don't think they would be pressured into doing anything. Whether it's a greedy desire for more, a notion of contributing ones fair share for ones fair reward, or a high minded desire to accomplish something with their lives, most people will be willing to do some kind of work. Countries with far greater social safety nets than America exist, yet don't have a plethora of welfare bums mooching off the state.

Because they have some degree of pressure- the threat of lower social status and less material possesions. They also have potential rewards in the prospect of wealth.

1 - Primitive people who know no better might agree, but from the standpoint of modern health and sanitation the lives of people in those kinds of conditions have generally been nasty, brutish and short.

So we agree. This point is concluded.

3 - Even if you are forcing a person to work, you can at least give them an opportunity to improve themselves, whether its better pay, education or reimbursement for such, or training and/or experience. Anything that lets them have a fucking chance at improving their lot in life.

People of ability have actually made themselves wealthy. It's those without ability who have problems.

With that kind of reasoning sociopathy along with other mental disorders could easily be considered natural; yet I still consider these people sick and twisted. If you want to consider that an extreme way of describing "bad", than there you go.

Practically everyone has a social status instinct- why do you think social status still exists? That is what distinguishes it from sociopathy.

I never said I have a problem with the creation of wealth, in fact I'm all for it. It's the lack of equitable redistribution that is wrong. Hell, the richer the society is, the more wealth to be spread around. I don't even have a problem with some people being reasonably rich. The problem is these people not only often have far more than they need, but keep trying to pervert and milk the system to get more at the expense of everyone else, particularly those with little or nothing.

1- I haven't yet raised the point that "redistribution" appears to have been a word invented as a euphemism for "stealing" or "taking".
2- But you do have a problem with people being more then "reasonably" rich, even if this doesn't make others in absolute terms poorer?
3- You also think people should not have more then they need, even if they've earned it?
4- We both agree this is not a good thing, and most of such practices would be classified as an "elitist society" by my classifications.

Maybe when I see them stop playing the political game and start actually taking a stance and stick by it; and not do what so many Republican politicians have done (especially lately) and throw out ideas for reform and then turn around and oppose those same ideas when Democrats accept them and try to incorporate them into legislation.

Evidence and sources please? Both political parties have (as I understand it) backflipped before.Also, you are talking about politicians- I am talking about all conservatives.

No, I think they have inflated opinions of themselves and their abilities! the majority of them talk tough, few actually can back up their words.

You think people actually learn how to fire guns and then won't in the face of a bear attack?

Again with the "Pure" crap!

Adressed earlier.

Well then I'll take my Commie Cooperative Utopia as I believe essential services should be available for all.

That's why I advocate a choice between a purely competitive society and a purely cooperative society (and various midpoints).

[Carinthium]

Is your reading comprehension that of a five year old child? I said no such thing.

They generally do not teach them as dogma. They are sets of ideas about how the world should work, generally displayed as values, the ethics behind which can be derived from first principles and are subject to actual reasoning and in some cases testing.

It doesn't matter if moral behaviour involves reasoning or not, or even if people can't help it- it is irrational. Given that nobody has ever estabished their moral first principles to be valid, it is fair to say that all moral reasoning is irrational.

You are now just being sophistic. The whole point of ethical philosophy is to define and strive toward The Good. If it were a good thing for something to be so, then it becomes obligatory or at least desirable by definition to attempt to make such a state so. The only caveat is if doing so would bring about another undesirable state.

You are making a circular argument- you have not demonstrated that ethical philosophy's point is to strive towards "the good" against the counter-posistion that it's purpose is to establish what "the good is" or the counter-posistion that it is irrational.

Maybe not, but it would have forced some kind of reform. Putting down peasant revolts is costly business. In the case of the French Revolution, the aristocrats died by the hundred.

Europe in the relevant period was, in historical terms, an anomaly. Throughout thousands of years of history, feudal inequality has been generally accepted despite the massive status difference. Since I have actually read about peasantry (particularly Russian peasantry) I should point out thatRussian peasants were often unhygenic, stuffy, cramped, and prone to fire. (Source: http://russian-ukrainian-belarus-histor ... asant_life in case you don't believe me) It is also well-known that soldiers looting the Tsar's palace were in awe at it's opulent luxury- anyone who saw both would see a clear difference.

The relationship between peasants and feudal lords was largely contractual.

A contract a peasant could not escape. A feudal lord could, abdicating or selling his lands. They could also evict the peasants (as was shown later).

Did you read the above posts I have been making? Did they sink into your thick skull? Or are you just trolling instead of being an idiot?

Any society requires some form of altruism, unless said group is nothing but an aggregation. Wasps getting together to communally raise offspring require that females take care of unrelated brood etc. For that to evolve, the problem of social cheating needs to be solved- individuals taking advantage of the cooperation of others, without cooperating themselves. Why? Their fitness is higher. They gain the benefit of cooperation without experiencing the cost. Without mechanisms to reduce the fitness of those individuals, sociality cannot evolve. These have evolved in us. It is hard-wired into our brains. Cant stop it.

Now, there are transitional stages between being solitary and being eusocial, but those all solve the same problem. Aggregations dont have any actual altruism, but African Bullfrogs do communal offspring care. They solve the problem by having no kin recognition, so the frog that stays behind to guard the tadpoles cannot preferentially treat his own offspring. If the tadpoles, die, so do his.

However, a species cannot do both. They cannot be solitary, and able to live in a state of quasi-cooperation. There is not a species on the planet that does this.

Society can work much as capitalism does in theory- people create trade goods to sell to each other in exchange for resources. The threat of being hunted down and murdered (individuals would do this for themselves) would provide a reasonable detterent against social cheating.

You really must be illiterate. Both cooperation and competition are hard-wired into our brains. Neither is more likely to succeed than the other. They will both fail. I just spent paragraph after paragraph explaining how cooperation is maintained. The emotions we feel that mediate our social living are instinctual, not rational. They evolved, they were not originally cogitated. No one sat down and made a rational decision to cooperate. We have been social since our ape ancestors climbed down from the trees.

Do you have a brain yourself? I am clearly not illiterate, or this argument would not have gone on for as long as it has.

The reason a competitive society is more likely to suceed then a cooperative society is that humans have more incentives to be competitive- survival. Without a code of morality being taught, and without the issue of kin (this is admittedly a hole in the idea, but a smaller one then being forced to work for no incentives), it will be significantly easier for such a society (relative to creating a purely cooperative society) to exist.

There was actually a person found unlucky enough to have lived by himself his whole life. He did manage to survive, demonstrating it is possible.

"Wait, you have to kill what makes me human in order to make your libertopia work?" That makes no fucking sense.

1- Can the ordinary person really think so far as to talk about "what makes me human"?
2- The line of propaganda is easy (if dishonest). It will be claimed that neither a Left Wing society nor a Right Wing society can work due to the human brain "not working", and that the only way for any political ideal to be achieved is to modify people to make it possible. This won't work on intelligent people or religious, but both have been sidelined before.

[Temujin]

Do you have a brain yourself? I am clearly not illiterate, or this argument would not have gone on for as long as it has.

The reason both of our arguments with you have gone on as long as they have is that you've tried to twist the thread into the equivalent of a M.C. Escher painting.

In the immortal words of Gordan Ramsey: "Fuck me!"

[Carinthium]

Do you have a brain yourself? I am clearly not illiterate, or this argument would not have gone on for as long as it has.

The reason both of our arguments with you have gone on as long as they have is that you've tried to twist the thread into the equivalent of a M.C. Escher painting.

In the immortal words of Gordan Ramsey: "Fuck me!"

Oh, I'm sorry- I must be autistic or something. I assumed that the point of the thread was what you said it was.

[Temujin]

Oh, I'm sorry- I must be autistic or something. I assumed that the point of the thread was what you said it was.

Except that all of this...

What are you a sock puppet of AlphaWolf's. I already addressed the fact that I said "more of a competition", and clarified that regarding the OP. If you can't read and/or are going to continue to whine about your misreading of my post then go fuck off!

I'm just pointing out that your original statement was incorrect. You have clarified it, but that doesn't change the fact your original statement was incorrect.

It's already been made quite clear that we're not dealing with hypothetical purely cooperative or competitive societies; at least the rest of us aren't.

You shouldn't claim a thread is about whether society should be collective or cooperative if you don't mean collective or cooperative. If this is about whether society should be socialist or capitalist you should have had a different thread title.

Again trying to claim that I'm dealing in absolutes, when it is clearly you who is doing so. And your "elitist society" already exists, probably just not to the exploitative degree that you and your kind would like.

I am advocating a competitive society, not an elitist society- there is a difference. A competitive society does not allow the elites to, for example, make a regressive tax system or exploit private eminent domain.

As for the point about dealing in absolutes, see earlier.

By George, I think you finally got it!

You're contradicting your own thread title.

If libertarianism was so fucking great, why in the entire history of civilization has it never arisen, survived and prospered like you all think it will.

1- For libertarianism to exist at all, Western cultural ideas about freedom were an essential basis for it. This considerably narrowed the timespan in which it could evolve.
2- The elites of a society generally do not want libertarianism, as it provides insecurity they are not willing to risk.
3- The masses of a society generally do not want libertarianism (nowadays) due to lost benefits.

Anyway, I am talking about what should be- once an ideal has been established, it can be worked towards. A libertarian society would be less secure, but theoretical models have been created to make it more likely. (Since you haven't cited sources, I won't bother to explain what various anarcho-capitalists have figured out)

No, most people are stupid and believe stupid things. Much like common sense, the ability to truly think critically is so rare it’s practically a super power. Though a shitty education system certainly doesn't help.

Most people, maybe. I am referring to some people- your original statement was over-generalising.

Well then I'll take my Commie Cooperative Utopia as I believe essential services should be available for all.

That's why I advocate a choice between a purely competitive society and a purely cooperative society (and various midpoints).

...is nothing more than you nitpicking and misrepresenting what I said in an attempt to redefine the thread to your liking. Everyone but you seems to understand what the topic was about and that it’s not about absolutes, yet you keep harping about absolutes because that’s all you want to talk about. You just want to set up a cooperative society as a communist/socialist straw man to knock down so you can wank about your fantasy libertopian society that can only exist in theory.


Then we have...

Their beliefs are irrational, hence they are irrational (though I never said anything about purely) If you've read any of the site or the board's history than you'll see that the ideologies for all three have consistently been ripped to shreds. I don't have the time right now to deconstruct all of their arguments just for this thread.

Have you ever been to Christian, Conservative, or Libertarian websites to see their counter-arguments? Have you engaged in debates against them? Can you not even copy-paste the sections you consider relevant?

Don't act naive, it's well known that large corporations have spent vast sums on lobbying; and there have been many instances of less than ethical practices associated with corporate lobbying. This is why lobbying reform has been a constant issue. I pointed out in another thread how the bank spent millions in the 1980s to repeal financial regulations.

1- I live in Australia.
2- I don't keep up much with the news.

Therefore, since I don't know about these practices are you talking about, care to list them with sources?

Because while the electorate is clearly stupid, they're not that stupid; and they are also quite greedy and selfish. Despite a lot of the rhetoric they support, once the people are given something like Medicare, they don't want to give it up. Which makes it so ironic and amusing to see them screaming in the same breath that they don't want socialized medicine, but "keep your damn hands off my Medicare!"

Have you viewed conservative websites? Not that many even believe in eliminating the income tax.

Maybe when I see them stop playing the political game and start actually taking a stance and stick by it; and not do what so many Republican politicians have done (especially lately) and throw out ideas for reform and then turn around and oppose those same ideas when Democrats accept them and try to incorporate them into legislation.

Evidence and sources please? Both political parties have (as I understand it) backflipped before.Also, you are talking about politicians- I am talking about all conservatives.

…you trying to split the thread into numerous tangents while simultaneously playing dumb and acting like an expert; which makes me question what kind of game you’re playing. You’re the one that came to me questioning something I said and I kindly obliged you by creating a thread; that you now want to keep steering the thread everywhere but the OP that you keep trying to redefine. If I had known it was going to be like this I wouldn’t have bothered. I don’t mind discussing things and even limited debates, but I don’t have time to get into a long and drawn out debate, otherwise I’d request this go to the Coliseum. If you’re interested in arguing these points in detail, I’m sure someone with more time and inclination will oblige you.


There’s also a lot of whining about Ad Hominem attacks because you don’t like my snarky comments, swearing and insults. Boo Fucking Hoo! Maybe I wouldn’t be such a dick if you weren’t being such a tit.

Most of that is rhethoric repeating the same claim. It is an ad hominem argument.

You have not adressed this point.

You claim- this has not been demonstrated. Competition is a part of natural society.
The problem (my argument is) is that societies are too intermixed of people with different preferences. If seperate societies exist accomodating political extremes and moderates, a much larger percentage of the world's population could live in a society of the nature they want.

You have not adressed this point.

I don’t know what the fuck this is, it looks like you’re arguing with yourself.


Some other gems:

3 - Even if you are forcing a person to work, you can at least give them an opportunity to improve themselves, whether its better pay, education or reimbursement for such, or training and/or experience. Anything that lets them have a fucking chance at improving their lot in life.

People of ability have actually made themselves wealthy. It's those without ability who have problems.

And plenty of people of ability have not, while many without ability have gotten a free ride to success due to what wealthy family they are born into.

With that kind of reasoning sociopathy along with other mental disorders could easily be considered natural; yet I still consider these people sick and twisted. If you want to consider that an extreme way of describing "bad", than there you go.

Practically everyone has a social status instinct- why do you think social status still exists? That is what distinguishes it from sociopathy.

So it’s OK, or at least doesn’t matter if a person who has authority over someone treats that person like shit because they have social status instinct. No, people who behave in this fashion are sociopaths, narcissists, etc. And yes, they are twisted, as are those who apologize for them.

I never said I have a problem with the creation of wealth, in fact I'm all for it. It's the lack of equitable redistribution that is wrong. Hell, the richer the society is, the more wealth to be spread around. I don't even have a problem with some people being reasonably rich. The problem is these people not only often have far more than they need, but keep trying to pervert and milk the system to get more at the expense of everyone else, particularly those with little or nothing.

1- I haven't yet raised the point that "redistribution" appears to have been a word invented as a euphemism for "stealing" or "taking".
2- But you do have a problem with people being more then "reasonably" rich, even if this doesn't make others in absolute terms poorer?
3- You also think people should not have more then they need, even if they've earned it?
4- We both agree this is not a good thing, and most of such practices would be classified as an "elitist society" by my classifications.

Ah yes, the redistribution is stealing argument. People don’t make their money in vacuum; they make it due to the society they live in that has given them advantages that allowed them to make the money in the first place. If the greedy pricks aren’t willing to give back to the society that gave them this opportunity, especially when they have far more money than they will ever need, than it should be taken from them. And I’m honestly so sick of them and their apologists that I would advocate stripping them of everything and throwing them into the wilderness buck naked. If they’re so fucking talented, let’s see them create something from scratch.

[Carinthium]

...is nothing more than you nitpicking and misrepresenting what I said in an attempt to redefine the thread to your liking. Everyone but you seems to understand what the topic was about and that it’s not about absolutes, yet you keep harping about absolutes because that’s all you want to talk about. You just want to set up a cooperative society as a communist/socialist straw man to knock down so you can wank about your fantasy libertopian society that can only exist in theory.

Why did you call the thread "Society: A collective effort or a competition?" if it was about what mix of a collective effort or a competition you wanted? I honestly believed you had the grammatical ability to make your point clear.

…you trying to split the thread into numerous tangents while simultaneously playing dumb and acting like an expert; which makes me question what kind of game you’re playing. You’re the one that came to me questioning something I said and I kindly obliged you by creating a thread; that you now want to keep steering the thread everywhere but the OP that you keep trying to redefine. If I had known it was going to be like this I wouldn’t have bothered. I don’t mind discussing things and even limited debates, but I don’t have time to get into a long and drawn out debate, otherwise I’d request this go to the Coliseum. If you’re interested in arguing these points in detail, I’m sure someone with more time and inclination will oblige you.

I didn't ask for this thread- when I sent the PM, I thought you would give me an answer (and a private argument might have started). I "play dumb" on some things and act like an expert on others because I know about some issues and don't know about others- most people are, after all, specialists in a field.

There’s also a lot of whining about Ad Hominem attacks because you don’t like my snarky comments, swearing and insults. Boo Fucking Hoo! Maybe I wouldn’t be such a dick if you weren’t being such a tit.

You can make snarky comments, swearing, and insults- just don't use them as refutations to rational arguments.

I don’t know what the fuck this is, it looks like you’re arguing with yourself.

I am quoting myself in order to point arguments YOU HAVE NOT ADRESSED.

And plenty of people of ability have not, while many without ability have gotten a free ride to success due to what wealthy family they are born into.

The latter obviously exists, and is defensible with the argument that once somebody earns money they have the right to give it as a free gift to whom they will. If you give examples of the former I'll give my argument.

So it’s OK, or at least doesn’t matter if a person who has authority over someone treats that person like shit because they have social status instinct. No, people who behave in this fashion are sociopaths, narcissists, etc. And yes, they are twisted, as are those who apologize for them.

It is simply human nature- or haven't you seen the sheer number of feudal societies, amount of domestic violence, ecetra in history? That might make it bad- but it doesn't make it abnormal.

2- But you do have a problem with people being more then "reasonably" rich, even if this doesn't make others in absolute terms poorer?
3- You also think people should not have more then they need, even if they've earned it?
4- We both agree this is not a good thing, and most of such practices would be classified as an "elitist society" by my classifications.

You have not refuted these points.

People don’t make their money in vacuum; they make it due to the society they live in that has given them advantages that allowed them to make the money in the first place.

If one takes this premise further, one realises that diferent people gain different amounts of services from society- some gain more welfare, health, education, use the roads more etc. The rich don't gain more from government services- they just use what they do gain from them better.

If you claim that people owe society more then government services, I will point out:
1- Their parents raised them (in general), not society. People raised in orphanages are an exception.
2- The institution of currency was inherited from a much earlier society, as was most other technology. In modern times, patent-inventors have been given set rewards that they knew about when they made their inventions.
3- Individual transactions and contracts were freely entered into between individuals- assuming they were kept, wealth gained through said contracts (includign contracts of employment) has already been "paid for".
4- Society is made up of individuals, and exists to serve individuals. It is not the other way round.

If the greedy pricks aren’t willing to give back to the society that gave them this opportunity, especially when they have far more money than they will ever need, than it should be taken from them.

So you think people have set amounts of "need" a certain amount above which they are not allowed to have? What about the idea that if people work hard they can earn more money and resources? There are cases where people clearly have not (e.g.- British nobility), but why abandon the general principle?

And I’m honestly so sick of them and their apologists that I would advocate stripping them of everything and throwing them into the wilderness buck naked. If they’re so fucking talented, let’s see them create something from scratch.

Assuming you mean this other than rhethorically, the flaws are obvious- society would later expand and interfere. This is the same reason why your earlier suggestion that people go out into the wilderness and found their own society doesn't work- they would still be under the laws of a nation-state (except in nature reserves, from which they probably would be expelled, and Antartica which is unhabitable for large parts of the year).

[Patrick Degan]

The reason a competitive society is more likely to succeed then a cooperative society is that humans have more incentives to be competitive- survival. Without a code of morality being taught, and without the issue of kin (this is admittedly a hole in the idea, but a smaller one then being forced to work for no incentives), it will be significantly easier for such a society (relative to creating a purely cooperative society) to exist.

This is a joke. People with no common ties, no operational code of morality, and put together in a situation in which survival is the imperative will divide into two groups: predators and prey. The strong take from the weak, then fight it out amongst themselves to wind up on top of the heap. The logical end for such a "society" is warlordism and slavery. Or starvation. In any case, the idea that such a state of affairs could even be loosely referred to as a society, much less the assertion that it could succeed, is ludicrous on its face.

[Carinthium]

The reason a competitive society is more likely to succeed then a cooperative society is that humans have more incentives to be competitive- survival. Without a code of morality being taught, and without the issue of kin (this is admittedly a hole in the idea, but a smaller one then being forced to work for no incentives), it will be significantly easier for such a society (relative to creating a purely cooperative society) to exist.

This is a joke. People with no common ties, no operational code of morality, and put together in a situation in which survival is the imperative will divide into two groups: predators and prey. The strong take from the weak, then fight it out amongst themselves to wind up on top of the heap. The logical end for such a "society" is warlordism and slavery. Or starvation. In any case, the idea that such a state of affairs could even be loosely referred to as a society, much less the assertion that it could succeed, is ludicrous on its face.

The Confederate States of America were a society. Warlord states are societies. Have you forgotten that?

[Patrick Degan]

The reason a competitive society is more likely to succeed then a cooperative society is that humans have more incentives to be competitive- survival. Without a code of morality being taught, and without the issue of kin (this is admittedly a hole in the idea, but a smaller one then being forced to work for no incentives), it will be significantly easier for such a society (relative to creating a purely cooperative society) to exist.

This is a joke. People with no common ties, no operational code of morality, and put together in a situation in which survival is the imperative will divide into two groups: predators and prey. The strong take from the weak, then fight it out amongst themselves to wind up on top of the heap. The logical end for such a "society" is warlordism and slavery. Or starvation. In any case, the idea that such a state of affairs could even be loosely referred to as a society, much less the assertion that it could succeed, is ludicrous on its face.

The Confederate States of America were a society. Warlord states are societies. Have you forgotten that?

The Confederate States of America failed (and in any case is a red herring to this argument). Warlord states fail and are subject to conquest by far larger, better organised and far more efficient military powers. Kindly demonstrate a competitive society on the terms you outline that has ever succeeded.

[Carinthium]

NOTE: Removed several quote barriers due to only being allowed to embed 3 quotes within each other.

The reason a competitive society is more likely to succeed then a cooperative society is that humans have more incentives to be competitive- survival. Without a code of morality being taught, and without the issue of kin (this is admittedly a hole in the idea, but a smaller one then being forced to work for no incentives), it will be significantly easier for such a society (relative to creating a purely cooperative society) to exist.

This is a joke. People with no common ties, no operational code of morality, and put together in a situation in which survival is the imperative will divide into two groups: predators and prey. The strong take from the weak, then fight it out amongst themselves to wind up on top of the heap. The logical end for such a "society" is warlordism and slavery. Or starvation. In any case, the idea that such a state of affairs could even be loosely referred to as a society, much less the assertion that it could succeed, is ludicrous on its face.

The Confederate States of America were a society. Warlord states are societies. Have you forgotten that?[/quote]

The Confederate States of America failed (and in any case is a red herring to this argument). Warlord states fail and are subject to conquest by far larger, better organised and far more efficient military powers. Kindly demonstrate a competitive society on the terms you outline that has ever succeeded.[/quote]

The Confederate States sustained a war effort against a much larger military power determined to conquer it, and whilst maintaining the institution of slavery sucessfully won to a sufficent extent that their defeat (although objectively highly likely against the Union's superior resources) looked far from inevitable and the capture of Washington even appeared likely. Additionally, large numbers of societies have sustained slavery throughout their history without collapsing.

Warlord or quasi-warlord states can often suceed (although they usually transform into non-warlord states)- good examples are the barbarian conquests of the Western Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, and the rise of Mohammed. Their weakness is not that they are likely to be conquered (they are small, but in the absence of nationalism are conquered only as much as other smaller societies) but that they are too vulrnable to de-warlordising.

Such a society is as unlikely to arise naturally as is modern technology, but can be artificially created. One possible (although extreme) measure would be to have a foriegn police force (exempt from competiveness laws) enforcing a choice (in a small area) between surgical removal of capacity for morality or exile. (The politicial justification being freedom of choice, and with the lands being lawfully bought from the owners before undertaking such a project)

[Patrick Degan]

The Confederate States of America failed (and in any case is a red herring to this argument). Warlord states fail and are subject to conquest by far larger, better organised and far more efficient military powers. Kindly demonstrate a competitive society on the terms you outline that has ever succeeded.

The Confederate States sustained a war effort against a much larger military power determined to conquer it, and whilst maintaining the institution of slavery sucessfully won to a sufficent extent that their defeat (although objectively highly likely against the Union's superior resources) looked far from inevitable and the capture of Washington even appeared likely. Additionally, large numbers of societies have sustained slavery throughout their history without collapsing.

You flunk history. The Confederate armies would never have had the force necessary to capture Washington, which at that time was the most heavily fortified city on Earth. Appearances don't count for dick. And as for how the Confederacy managed to last as long as it did, that speaks far more to the ineptness of the commanders of the Army of the Potomac than the Confederacy's capabilities. See George Brinton McClellan as example. Additionally, the Confederacy itself started to come apart at the seams under the pressure of war, and States Rights still ended up holding a higher premium than Federal unity right to the very end, which was one of the many reasons the CSA failed.

Warlord or quasi-warlord states can often succeed (although they usually transform into non-warlord states)- good examples are the barbarian conquests of the Western Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, and the rise of Mohammed. Their weakness is not that they are likely to be conquered (they are small, but in the absence of nationalism are conquered only as much as other smaller societies) but that they are too vulrnable to de-warlordising.

The barbarian conquests only occurred after the Western Roman Empire had degenerated to the point where it could not sustain itself militarily or politically. For the previous eight centuries in which that was not the case, the Romans crushed their tribal opposition. And Temujin was not merely the leader of a war band but forged a very well organised empire and large army to back him up —accomplishments speaking to complex political design more than mere martial prowess.

Such a society is as unlikely to arise naturally as is modern technology, but can be artificially created. One possible (although extreme) measure would be to have a foriegn police force (exempt from competiveness laws) enforcing a choice (in a small area) between surgical removal of capacity for morality or exile. (The politicial justification being freedom of choice, and with the lands being lawfully bought from the owners before undertaking such a project)

And exactly how long will such a "society" last without what is, in effect, a foreign occupation force backing up its puppet ruling group? No, you don't get away with Moving the Goalposts around here, Skippy. So I will put it to you again: demonstrate a competitive society on the terms you outline that has ever succeeded. Do you think you can manage that?

[K. A. Pital]

Given tribal governments, they are nowhere near a competitive society.

Given there's no anarchy which wouldn't devolve into tribalism, and later into larger governments, it's an exercise in futility. Pure anarchy has not existed anywhere on Earth, much less could it ever compete with centralized "cooperative" societies as you'd call them.

So if the competitive society (let's call it "pure anarchy" since you're saying only purest anarchy is competitive) has never existed and basically can't even be created (because the very moment you create a perfect anarchy, people start reverting to tribal governments to build a cooperative from the ground up, with absolutely nothing to stop them), why discuss it at all?

Why not discuss the Invisible Pink Unicorn instead?

[Carinthium]

You flunk history. The Confederate armies would never have had the force necessary to capture Washington, which at that time was the most heavily fortified city on Earth. Appearances don't count for dick.

1- We both agree they could never have captured Washington.
2- Why shouldn't appearances be factored? The ability to control public perception is a military advantage in warfare, and (in the absence of major exaggeration of Confederate abilities taking place at the time) the perception shows some degree of military capabilities.

And as for how the Confederacy managed to last as long as it did, that speaks far more to the ineptness of the commanders of the Army of the Potomac than the Confederacy's capabilities. See George Brinton McClellan as example.

I concede insomuch as to my knowledge the commanders who defeated the Confederates were inept.

Additionally, large numbers of societies have sustained slavery throughout their history without collapsing.

You have not refuted this point.

The barbarian conquests only occurred after the Western Roman Empire had degenerated to the point where it could not sustain itself militarily or politically. For the previous eight centuries in which that was not the case, the Romans crushed their tribal opposition

This is not completely true- Franks reached as far as Tarragona in the year 250. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Origins)

And Temujin was not merely the leader of a war band but forged a very well organised empire and large army to back him up —accomplishments speaking to complex political design more than mere martial prowess.

When Temujin was conquering Mongolia he still qualified as a warlord. He may have been less and less of one as time went on, but the fact he could make such achievements as a warlord is still noteworthy.

And exactly how long will such a "society" last without what is, in effect, a foreign occupation force backing up its puppet ruling group? No, you don't get away with Moving the Goalposts around here, Skippy.

This argument was about whether such a society was possible over an extended period, not whether it was self-sustaining. Can you provide actual evidence of Moving the Goalposts?

[Carinthium]

Given tribal governments, they are nowhere near a competitive society.

Given there's no anarchy which wouldn't devolve into tribalism, and later into larger governments, it's an exercise in futility. Pure anarchy has not existed anywhere on Earth, much less could it ever compete with centralized "cooperative" societies as you'd call them.

So if the competitive society (let's call it "pure anarchy" since you're saying only purest anarchy is competitive) has never existed and basically can't even be created (because the very moment you create a perfect anarchy, people start reverting to tribal governments to build a cooperative from the ground up, with absolutely nothing to stop them), why discuss it at all?

Why not discuss the Invisible Pink Unicorn instead?

1- I am not advocating anarchy, but a society in which pure competitiveness is enforced (thus preventing the setting up of tribal governments).
2- The society wouldn't have to compete, as it would be under the protection of a larger more conventional society.